Allow me to venture a meta-comment upon many discussion threads in which religious believers and nonbelievers express and exchange contrary views.
It seems to me that, in many, but not all cases, what the believers are seeking to do and what the nonbelievers are seeking to do are fundamentally two different things.
The believers are oftentimes, whatever they say, not interested in debate. Rather, they are interesting in publicly airing their faith, to bear witness to what is the established truth, as they confidently see it.
To debate means to entertain, in good faith, the possibility that one's view may be incorrect, and that one could be convinced otherwise by rational argument and evidence, even if one currently believes (as everyone does initially) one's own point of view.
But when I see what some believers have to say, they are not appealing either to argument or evidence, but rather to revelation, intuition, or authority. To them, argument and evidence are irrelevant.
Hence, the do not engage in debate. They simply do not wish examine the premises on which their belief is based to see if they are well-founded. They wish to assume the truth of those premises. They start with a faith-based conclusion, and then embrace any premises that point towards it. It is a form of epistemological bad faith, a failure of cognitive nerve, an instance of intellectual cowardice.
Of course, this is not true of all believers. Moreover, some nonbelievers, ideologically wedded to their atheism, may be guilty of their own form of "witnessing".
However, I think the difference in underlying intent that I have outlined is responsible for why many believer-nonbeliever debates degenerate into pointless slanging matches. Many believers are more interested in the conclusion, and premises are the means to an end, whereas many nonbelievers are interested in the premises, and following them dutifully to the conclusion.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeWhat can they do? Faith and reason are seperate things. What reason will not tolerate, that harlot Faith will entertain.
Allow me to venture a meta-comment upon many discussion threads in which religious believers and nonbelievers express and exchange contrary views.
It seems to me that, in many, but not all cases, what the believers are seeking to do and what the nonbelievers are seeking to do are fundamentally two different things.
The believers are oftentimes, wh ...[text shortened]... any nonbelievers are interested in the premises, and following them dutifully to the conclusion.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeYou have a good point my friend. I must agree that in many cases the believers performing in the manner you have prescribed. As a believer, I will tell you why I try to resist the debate over my beliefs. For me, it has nothing to do with evaluating the premise, rather than that the purpose of the discussion is irrelevant. In most believer/non-believer discussions I have seen here there is very little, if any, attempt to achieve a mutual understanding. The purpose of the debate is usually to further ones own belief (or non-belief as the case may be), refuting the opposing view point entirely.
Allow me to venture a meta-comment upon many discussion threads in which religious believers and nonbelievers express and exchange contrary views.
It seems to me that, in many, but not all cases, what the believers are seeking to do and what the nonbelievers are seeking to do are fundamentally two different things.
The believers are oftentimes, wh ...[text shortened]... any nonbelievers are interested in the premises, and following them dutifully to the conclusion.
This is where we touch upon the debate becoming little more than a mud slinging match, much as you have said. I am not suprised at this though, being that the debate was often started with little more than this in mind. Even if the thread was not started with this intention, it is not long before someone comes along and post some inflammatory remark that is of no true relevance. It all goes downhill from there.
The true bottom line, I suppose, is that debates degrade into pointless mud slinging when:
1) Posters are unwilling to evaluate their claims and offer support for their claim that is of relevance to the discussion and points raised by fellow posters.
and
2) Inflammatory posts are made, with little or no other intent than to anger those of the opposing view point. Disrespect is a sure sign of a closed mind. If such is the case, you have no business posting in a debate thread at all if you can not do so respectfully.
Personally, I am happy to engage in cordial banter about my views. I will happily evaluate the premise upon which my view points are based, and acknowledge valid points where due. However, I have little interest in putting the time or energy into making a well rationalized post if the reciever has no intention of contemplating what I have said further than how they can use it to disrespect or refute me and my beliefs. In all essence, a debate is a civiized arguement, and as such I do not propose that all debates function in the manner I have prescribed. This isn't candy land after all. However, the value of a debate lies in it's purpose, and I have seen very little purpose other than the stroking of egos lately in the debates forum.
Best Regards,
Omnislash
Originally posted by telerion
What can they do? Faith and reason are seperate things. What reason will not tolerate, that harlot Faith will entertain.
It is always a good start of a discussion spitting your opponent reasonably in the face ...... right, Telly ?
One of the reasons these debates usually fail is the hatred and the fear, yes the fear, on the side of those who consider themselves to be on the side of "reason". Some of them don't even try to hide this .... do I have to give you the names ?
To assume Faith and Reason are not compatible is so "practical" in debate. It is soo cheap to take this dichotomy for granted. It is a prejudice and it will bring forth nothing but strife and enmity.
It may be worth noting that the debates are not at all fair. They pit an atheist with an IQ of, let us say for the sake of argument, 150, against a Believer. The Believer in a personal God has an entity of unlimited intelligence, knowledge and wisdom on his side, guiding his fingers on the keyboard. (It goes without saying that the Believer will make no errors in spelling, punctuation, or grammar in his defense of his Lord.) The result should be no contest whatsoever--a complete wipeout of the atheist.
Or to put it another way, if there is some room for doubt in the mind of a neutral observer as to who won the debate, that in and of itself points the finger at the Believer as the one who is on the wrong side.
Originally posted by Paul Dirac
It may be worth noting that the debates are not at all fair. They pit an atheist with an IQ of, let us say for the sake of argument, 150, against a Believer. The Believer in a personal God has an entity of unlimited intelligence, knowledge and wisdom on his side, guiding his fingers on the keyboard. (It goes without saying that the Believer will make no e ...[text shortened]... te, that in and of itself points the finger at the Believer as the one who is on the wrong side.
Not all those who win debates will be elected though ....... go and ask Kerry .... 😀
Faith is nice, but reason pays the bills. If I had a choice between living in a society full of faith, but lacking in reason, or a society full of reason, but lacking in faith, it would not be a difficult decision.
Given that I feel this way, this recent (11/19) news alarmed me:
"Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence, while just as many say that it is just one of many theories and has not been supported by the evidence. The rest say they don't know enough to say. Forty-five percent of Americans also believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago. A third of Americans are biblical literalists who believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=14107
Originally posted by lloydkIt is all a matter of perception. However, I will tell you that I suspect that those numbers are incorrect. Most especially in regard to the "literal interpretation" of the Bible. As one of those "literal" people out there, I will tell you that I have a hard time swallowing this. The only way I can see this being correct is that if the entire populace of California are biblical "literalists" who do not attend a church that follows this doctrine. I will entertain the notion however that perhaps a good many people who took this survey did not answer.........accurately. 😉
Faith is nice, but reason pays the bills. If I had a choice between living in a society full of faith, but lacking in reason, or a society full of reason, but lacking in faith, it would not be a difficult decision.
Given that I feel this way, this recent (11/19) news alarmed me:
"Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of ...[text shortened]... o be taken literally, word for word."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=14107
Originally posted by Paul DiracBut God, if She exists, clearly lets lots of bad things happen. Why should She not also let those who believe in Her deploy invalid or unsound arguments?
It may be worth noting that the debates are not at all fair. They pit an atheist with an IQ of, let us say for the sake of argument, 150, against a Believer. The Believer in a personal God has an entity of unlimited intelligence, knowledge and wisdom on his side, guiding his fingers on the keyboard. (It goes without saying that the Believer will make no e ...[text shortened]... te, that in and of itself points the finger at the Believer as the one who is on the wrong side.
Threads like this always fill-up with agnostic bigots who lash out because they're scared to death, unsure, and searching. Then many of your so-called "believers" fight back because their faith and it's source are questioned which, naturally, puts them on defense.
Personally, I avoid defending my faith because there is no question a "non-believer" could present to me that I haven't thought myself. I have travled my road and arrived at my destination, as I believe every person will.
Debates, on faith, fade into crap because this is a debate that can only be won within one's self.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeDId you leave out the I am right so im not defending my positions but,,,,,,
Allow me to venture a meta-comment upon many discussion threads in which religious believers and nonbelievers express and exchange contrary views.
It seems to me that, in many, but not all cases, what the believers are seeking to do and what the nonbelievers are seeking to do are fundamentally two different things.
The believers are oftentimes, wh ...[text shortened]... any nonbelievers are interested in the premises, and following them dutifully to the conclusion.